Hon Bill English,
Minister of Finance,
Dear Mr English
Re: Government Funding for the Killing of Unborn Children
Our Society wishes to express its opposition to the government funding of the killing of unborn children as a core health service under the guise that the life of the baby is a threat to the mental health of the mother. Right to Life is opposed to abortions being funded by the government for the following reasons;
In 2010 there were 16,630 abortions performed in New Zealand at an estimated cost of $16,630,000. In addition there was $4,551,929 paid in fees to certifying consultants for having consultations with women seeking an abortion. The Minister of Health has advised that in 2003 there were 25,000 hospital bed stay days due to complications from abortion. It is estimated that the cost for this hospitalisation was an estimated $25 million. The current abortion regime was established with the passing of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977, [CS&A Act]. Since then a total of 405,567 abortions have been reported to the Abortion Supervisory Committee, [ASC]. Abortions are not genuine health services.
Why does the government not cease this funding and invest it in genuine health services that protect life and promote health?
Abortions are a core health service and are mainly performed in public hospitals and clinics. The ASC have reported each year since 1978 that 98 per cent of abortions are authorised on the grounds of mental health. In 1988 the ASC in its report to Parliament alluded to the majority of abortions being performed for pseudo legal reasons. The Committee have repeatedly reported to Parliament that the abortion law is not being interpreted as Parliament intended. It is generally accepted that we have abortion on demand which is unlawful. For the year ending 30 June 2011 the busiest certifying consultant approved 1028 abortions and declined just one. The second busiest consultant approved 1000 abortions and declined just two.
Why does the government fund abortions that are depriving unborn children of their lives unlawfully?
It is contended that the government is violating the human rights of unborn children who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. It is in contravention of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3, which states that, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. It is also in violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It states in the preamble, Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.
Why does the government fund abortions that violate human rights?
98 per cent of abortions are being performed for socio-economic reasons and not to preserve the life of the mother. It is contended that these abortions are elective surgery and should not be a charge on the public purse.
It is noted that 39 per cent of abortions are repeat abortions. Statistics NZ have provided detailed statistics for the year 2010.
The total of repeat abortions was 6407, which was 39 per cent of the total. The number of women having a second abortion was 4427 women while 1332 had their third, 446 their fourth, 136 their fifth, 47 their sixth, 10 their seventh and nine their eighth or more.
It is believed that some women may be using abortions as a form of contraception. Right to Life is very concerned at the damage that is being done to the health and wellbeing of these hapless women who may be on a path of self- destruction paid for by the taxpayer.
Why should the taxpayer be required to pay for abortions that are imposing violence against women and their unborn and damaging women’s health?
Studies conducted overseas reveal that 60 per cent of women who have an abortion are coerced into it. The decision to have an abortion is often made by friends, family and frequently by the father of the child who wants to escape responsibility for the child he has fathered and for the mother of the child. Why should the taxpayer be a party to this coercion by paying for an abortion that is not the wish of the mother. It is contended that the father of the child should generally be responsible for paying for the abortion. If this were the case Right to Life believes that there would be a substantial reduction in unplanned pregnancies and consequently in abortions.
Why should the taxpayer be required to fund coerced abortions?
The CS& A Act, section 46 provides protection for the conscience of any doctor nurse or any person from assisting or facilitating in an abortion. It is acknowledged that there is no protection in law to provide protection for the conscience of taxpayers who are deeply offended at being obliged to be a party to the killing of children before birth. It is right and just that there should be legal protection for doctors, nurses and other persons from involvement with abortions.
Why is there no legal protection for the conscience of taxpayers who are intrinsically involved in funding abortions?
It is acknowledged that on occasions there may not be universal approval for specific items of government expenditure, but for the common good they are accepted. It is always wrong to kill the innocent. In this instance we are considering the deliberate and violent killing of innocent and defenceless children in their first nine months of life. It is an intolerable violation of the conscience of many that we should be compelled to fund with our taxes the killing of the unborn. We are being forced to have the blood of innocent children on our hands. It is also an appalling injustice that we should be compelled against our will to fund abortions which are inflicting damage to the physical and mental health of women.
I would be grateful if you would advise why abortions are funded by the taxpayer? In conclusion our Society would be grateful if you would give consideration to withdrawing government funding for the killing of children before birth.
Yours sincerely
Ken Orr
Secretary
Loading ...
Recent Comments